On May 3, 2007, at 18:12, John Foliot - WATS.ca wrote:
> Henri Sivonen wrote:
>> It would be really nice if the advocates of semantic markup based
>> their advocacy on realistic use cases instead of an axiomatic belief
>> that more semantics are good and all presentational features are bad.
>
> It boils down to this: If you want to Bold some text, or italicize
> it, or
> underline it, you are doing so *for a reason*... I don't care
> really what
> the reason is,
More to the point, authors don't care to make it explicit what the
reason is even though there is a reason.
> But if you can't *SEE* the bold, italic or underlined text, how do you
> convey that same cue/clue to the end consumer? For the sighted user,
> presentational features are not bad, but for the non-sighted, pray
> tell, how
> will you convey that same nuance?
By making the default UA presentation of <i> match the default
presentation of <em> and making the default presentation of <b> match
the default UA presentation of <strong>. (And by making these
different from normal paragraph text.)
> So I will turn the tables - give me a good, realistic use-case where
> presenting nuanced information to some users, while excluding
> others, is
> "good".
That's not what I'm suggesting. OTOH, on the face of it, it seems to
be what the <span style=''> advocates are suggesting.
--
Henri Sivonen
hsivonen@iki.fihttp://hsivonen.iki.fi/